1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to a child-resistant closure which can be converted to a closure which is not child-resistant.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Packaging for many substances, in particular prescription medicines, is required by governmental regulations to be child-resistant. The typical child-resistant closure requires a particular sequence of manipulations, or simultaneous manipulations to effect removal of the closure. The prior art is replete with many examples of child-resistant closures which have been effective in preventing access to harmful substances by children, while generally being removable by adults.
There are adult users who sometimes encounter difficulty in opening child-resistant closures. Some elderly consumers, or consumers afflicted with arthritis, may be unable to open child-resistant closures. While such users may request a pharmacist to supply medicines with a closure which is not child-resistant, this choice leaves the user without the option to later reseal the container in a child-resistant mode, should this be necessary. It is also possible for a consumer to be supplied with two closures, one child-resistant, and the other one not child-resistant. A single closure which can be utilized in either a child-resistant or non child-resistant mode is an alternative providing further convenience to the user.
Although convenience to adult users is highly important, another important criterion is that the conversion to a closure which is not child-resistant requires some special manipulation, thereby to discourage casual use of the closure in the non child-resistant mode.
A dual purpose closure is described in U.S. Pat. No. 3,865,287 and Re. 29,779 to Morris. Morris discloses a unitary reversible closure, having two independent positions of use for sealing a container, one of which is child-resistant, and the other of which is not child-resistant. No manipulation of the closure, other than its inversion, is necessary to reseal a container such that it is not child-resistant. Hence, there is the potential that some users would reapply the closure in this configuration, without pausing to consider whether the child-resistant configuration should be utilized instead.